Stewart, do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your concerns?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman <mall...@icir.org> wrote: > > Hi Stewart, et.al.! > > I just submitted a new version of rto-consider. Please ask the > datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14. The highlights: > > - The diffs with the last rev are here: > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt > > - All small comments addressed. > > - I think we all agree that this is not a one-size-fits-all > situation. Rather, this document is meant to be a default case. > So, the main action of this rev is to make that point more > clearly. The first paragraph in the intro is new. Also, there > are some more words fleshing out the context more in section 2. > In particular, more emphatically making the point that other > loss detectors are fine for specific cases. > > - The first paragraph in the intro also makes clear we adopt the > loss == congestion model (as that is the conservative default, > not because it is always true). > > - I made one other change that wasn't exactly called for, but > seems like an oversight. > > Previously guideline (4) said loss MUST be taken as an > indication of congestion and some standard response taken. But, > this guideline has an explicit exception for cases where we know > the loss was caused by some non-congestion event. Guideline (3) > says you MUST backoff. But, it did not have this exception for > cases where we can tell the cause. But, I think based on the > spirit of (4), (3) should also have these words. So, I added > them. > > Also, I swapped (3) and (4) because it seemed more natural in > re-reading to first think about taking congestion action and > then dealing with backoff. I think the ordering is a small > thing, but folks can yell and I'll put it back if there is > angst. > > Please take a look and let me know if this helps things along or > not. > > allman >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
